People who believe in god are broken

[Villain]

You are one insulting human being, like most if not all believers you pretend to have knowledge you do not and can not have. You tell others you have this knowledge and insult those who question you. you do you best to intimidate anyone who don't "believe" your knowledge and make them feel like they are stupid for not believing your line of horse feathers.

 

You have not made and argument to support god or religion, all you have is your assertions that you just "know" and the insinuation that anyone who doesn't know is somehow too lazy to have really really looked into religion. All you have are claims and assertions of reveled truths when in fact all you have is belief, belief with no evidence what so ever. That is broken and I don't give a bucket of horse feathers what country you are from...

 

How does one communicate with someone who thinks repeating the words 'horse feathers' is a constructive form of argument or opinion? How is insisting that religion is only horse feathers suppose to convey a knowledge of religion. You assert that you have read the Bible a whopping four times but then make statements like the one that religion is meant to give man authority over other men. Matthew 22:37-39 completely contradicts what you posted earlier, yet we are suppose to accept you knowledge of religion as being sound.

[iNow]

The Abrahamic religions tend to have more historicity than the others.

Even if I accept this point as valid, none of that historicity even begins to adequately justify the extreme jump that is required to have an affirmative belief in this one particular version of god.

 

---

Matthew 22:37-39 completely contradicts what you posted earlier, yet we are suppose to accept you knowledge of religion as being sound.

It should be noted, however, that any participants here in this discussion don't need to be experts on your personally preferred work of human fiction... you're preferred anthology. The discussion has centered around the lack of evidence to support an affirmative belief in god(s), and how faith alone is the worse possible reason to accept a proposition as true... Yet that's really all you have.

[Moontanman]

How does one communicate with someone who thinks repeating the words 'horse feathers' is a constructive form of argument or opinion? How is insisting that religion is only horse feathers suppose to convey a knowledge of religion. You assert that you have read the Bible a whopping four times but then make statements like the one that religion is meant to give man authority over other men. Matthew 22:37-39 completely contradicts what you posted earlier, yet we are suppose to accept you knowledge of religion as being sound.

 

 

Is there any argument you would feel is valid? I can debunk very nearly everything in the bible, Matthew 22:37-39 Contradicts what I said? In what way? In what way does Matthew 22:37-39 give any credence what so ever to the idea that god is real? How does that passage negate the horse feathers being spouted in every church on the planet? What does that passage have to do with believing something with no evidence being broken?

 

You are one insulting human being, like most if not all believers you pretend to have knowledge you do not and can not have. You tell others you have this knowledge and insult those who question you. you do you best to intimidate anyone who don't "believe" your knowledge and make them feel like they are stupid for not believing your line of horse feathers.

 

You have not made and argument to support god or religion, all you have is your assertions that you just "know" and the insinuation that anyone who doesn't know is somehow too lazy to have really really looked into religion. All you have are claims and assertions of reveled truths when in fact all you have is belief, belief with no evidence what so ever. That is broken and I don't give a bucket of horse feathers what country you are from...

 

How does that passage negate what i said? Be specific, how does pointing out the crap that theists insist on have anything to do with that passage? I have sat down and read the bible cover to cover at least four times in my life, if you count all the times I've read it in parts at the direction of some theist who was sure his favorite little section proved something I am sure it was far more than four times. how many times have you actually sat down and read the holy bible cover to cover? Did you pay attention to what it actually said? where is the justification for your belief in that book, where is the evidence that god, that particular god, is real?

 

In my experience very few believers have ever actually read the bible, most read the little sound bites their pastors tell them to read and then instead of actually seeing what is written let someone else tell them what it means even if what they say is so far from what is says it defies meaning... Most theists have no idea what their holy book actually says, they rely on what someone else tells them it says, that is sad....

[A Tripolation]

Even if I accept this point as valid, none of that historicity even begins to adequately justify the extreme jump that is required to have an affirmative belief in this one particular version of god.

 

What do you mean?

[iNow]

What do you mean?

That evidence for the historical accuracy of Jesus himself is not the same as evidence for the existence of god. That's what I mean.

 

I believe you already agree with this point, however, and you're more accurately described as a "cultural christian" along the same lines as a non-believing "cultural jew." Is that correct?

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Not so easy to throw out an entire book (Bible) because our ideas as a society of what is right and what is wrong have changed over time, as to negate the slavery and sexism denoted in the bible. It was not even twenty years ago that I was wondering what the big deal was, that the pronoun he should not be used to cover both males and females. It was a natural part of the language at that time, only challenged by "feminists". Even the term feminist had a deragatory smell to it. And "homosexuals" had a similiar negative conotation, that something was wrong with those people, that they were "broken" in some way.

 

The question came up earlier, as to why people that believe in the Bible, get a "free pass".

I think it is because its the Bible. Word of God or word of man, it makes no difference, it is the book that people swear to tell the truth while placing their hand upon it, so help them God. It is a "binding" document. It symbolizes our deepest possible connection to each other, and to the world we are a part of. Even if we never read it cover to cover.

 

Certainly it fails to contain the absolute objective scientific truth. It is transparent in its mirroring of the morays and values of man, 2000 years ago, which in many cases, and in many ways, we have "outgrown" or learned are indeed not the ways we wish to be.

 

It is not possible, in my estimation, for me to have the values I have, to make determinations of what is Good and what is Evil, with the "Word of God" not playing some role, as a "source" or foundation (as Villian would put it), on at least a subconscious level.

It was a book highly valued and reverd and respected by my family, church, school, government, and society. The stories and characters in the book are engrained in me, as strongly as the fairy tales of Hans Christian Anderson or Grimms.

 

The history of Western Civilization was guided by the book. Wars were fought, crusades were mounted, Cathedrals and universities built. Muslims, Christians, Jews, all guided by the truths found in THAT BOOK. Even the Koran is based on THAT BOOK.

 

Even the word bible is used as a generic term referring to even a pamphlet whose principles and words, one goes by "that's my bible".

 

You give people a free pass, who believe in it, because its the Bible.

 

We protect the Koran in the same way. You can't burn a Koran or draw a comic of Mohammed, without strongly offending a billion people.

 

Religions have a lot of "baggage" attached to them. Belief in God has some deep deep meaning to people. And the meaning is obviously not the meaning an Atheist would attach to the word God.

 

I am personally at a loss to answer Villian's question about what foundation one builds upon, if they don't "believe in God".

 

I might have my own ideas about what God is, or is not. And what is possible and impossible and what might lie somewhere inbetween, but my "total conception" of the universe, and reality, and life, and death, and what existed before me and after me, and other than me, includes a strange, magical ingredient, that has no scientific name, no way of explaining, no evidence to back it up. Just a "feeling" that I am in some way part of it all, in a way that existed before TAR and will exist after TAR, regardless of the fact that "there is no way that could be true". And this "gives me strength" and a basis upon which to build everything else I muse about, and make judgements about.

 

Is this a false and broken thing I do? That I can believe that God is not literally true, as depicted in the Bible, but still build my house on rock?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Follow me. Don't worry yourself about tomorrow. Don't concern yourself with food, money, your children, your job. Just drop everything and give yourself entirely to me. You are my slave and I am your master, and we can be sure to tell everyone that religion doesn't give man authority over other men because I'm so much more than a man. I'm a god you know. My father is a god and he gave me the power to save or condemn each and every one of you. If you don't believe me -- if you refuse to be my good and faithful slave -- I will torture you eternally.

 

Coming from someone else who has read the good book, hose feathers is the nicest phrase that comes to mind.

[Villain]

Is there any argument you would feel is valid? I can debunk very nearly everything in the bible, Matthew 22:37-39 Contradicts what I said? In what way? In what way does Matthew 22:37-39 give any credence what so ever to the idea that god is real? How does that passage negate the horse feathers being spouted in every church on the planet? What does that passage have to do with believing something with no evidence being broken?

 

 

 

How does that passage negate what i said? Be specific, how does pointing out the crap that theists insist on have anything to do with that passage? I have sat down and read the bible cover to cover at least four times in my life, if you count all the times I've read it in parts at the direction of some theist who was sure his favorite little section proved something I am sure it was far more than four times. how many times have you actually sat down and read the holy bible cover to cover? Did you pay attention to what it actually said? where is the justification for your belief in that book, where is the evidence that god, that particular god, is real?

 

In my experience very few believers have ever actually read the bible, most read the little sound bites their pastors tell them to read and then instead of actually seeing what is written let someone else tell them what it means even if what they say is so far from what is says it defies meaning... Most theists have no idea what their holy book actually says, they rely on what someone else tells them it says, that is sad....

 

It contradicts this:

 

Exactly what part of religious thinking are in favor of? Dehumanizing everyone who doesn't worship the same god? That is what religion boils down to, "I am superior because I know the true god" I don't get it.

 

 

It should be noted, however, that any participants here in this discussion don't need to be experts on your personally preferred work of human fiction... you're preferred anthology. The discussion has centered around the lack of evidence to support an affirmative belief in god(s), and how faith alone is the worse possible reason to accept a proposition as true... Yet that's really all you have.

 

I don't expect them to, that is why I try to refrain from discussing it here, but when someone claims that they know and understand religion and then presents ideas about the religion that contradict what the religion is based on, I feel the need to point out their errors. Sure his statement was made about religion as a whole but if certain religions don't subscribe to that generalisation (and I'm sure Christianity is not the only one to have such an outlook) then making a generalisation is flawed.

 

Follow me. Don't worry yourself about tomorrow. Don't concern yourself with food, money, your children, your job. Just drop everything and give yourself entirely to me. You are my slave and I am your master, and we can be sure to tell everyone that religion doesn't give man authority over other men because I'm so much more than a man. I'm a god you know. My father is a god and he gave me the power to save or condemn each and every one of you. If you don't believe me -- if you refuse to be my good and faithful slave -- I will torture you eternally.

 

Coming from someone else who has read the good book, hose feathers is the nicest phrase that comes to mind.

 

Yes, except no one is asking you to abandon your children or your job and you are not forced so slavery is the incorrect term. Man condemns himself, if he had not rejected God he would not need to be saved. Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man (God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac), He merely asks man to love Him and his fellow men, something that man is completely capable of doing if he is not concerned with his will but rather the will of the Father.

[Moontanman]

It contradicts this:

 

True, but none the less what I said is true for most if not all religions, the passage you quoted is one of many contradicted by how religion really works. just quoting that passage does nothing to negate how religion really works, if your experience with your religion was more wide spread you would or at least could see that what i said was correct. It's why Religions often break into smaller and smaller little sects. Christianity is especially bad for this. in my area tiny sects spring up like weeds and die in a few months to a few years because they become so self centered they cannot persist in our society but they always reform someplace else and literally feed on this idea of superiority. They all kinds of insane things from beating children to death because a 4 year old was possessed by the devil to the preacher practically being a harem master. I remember one particularly popular sect, it lasted several years, it was called "The Rod Of God Ministries" the people in the congregation used long hickory rods, about 1/2" in diameter to beat each other during church services, there was a very strong sexual aspect to it as well. They were required to praise Jesus each time the rod beat across their backs.

 

Now I know these are aberrant sects, at least I hope they are but each and every one, and there were dozens more or less just as weird, just in my area, they all based their sect on the bible, in fact the new Testament. The fact remains there are literally tens of thousands of various sects, cults, and denominations all claiming to be the one true church and all hostiles to the others. Before the Church was gelded by secular law these different churches persecuted each other quite vigorously and a good Catholic burning or a Quaker lynching was considered a good way to spend Sunday.

 

You see a religion gelded by law, forced to tolerate each other by law, this is a secular law it is not some kind of sweet Jesus loves us all movement. The religion you see is not what it is but what man made it...

 

 

 

 

 

I don't expect them to, that is why I try to refrain from discussing it here, but when someone claims that they know and understand religion and then presents ideas about the religion that contradict what the religion is based on, I feel the need to point out their errors. Sure his statement was made about religion as a whole but if certain religions don't subscribe to that generalisation (and I'm sure Christianity is not the only one to have such an outlook) then making a generalisation is flawed.

 

See above before you make claims you cannot support, I do indeed know quite a bit about your religion and i learned it down in the trenches not in some ivory tower mentally masturbating over how wonderful Jesus is.

 

 

Yes, except no one is asking you to abandon your children or your job and you are not forced so slavery is the incorrect term. Man condemns himself, if he had not rejected God he would not need to be saved. Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man (God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac), He merely asks man to love Him and his fellow men, something that man is completely capable of doing if he is not concerned with his will but rather the will of the Father.

 

 

And yet this is all horse feathers, no evidence what so ever, believe in something that has no evidence what so ever , believe in a book that describes god as a psychopathic monster or burn in hell, yeah, that works for me too...

 

Moontanman,

 

Not so easy to throw out an entire book (Bible) because our ideas as a society of what is right and what is wrong have changed over time, as to negate the slavery and sexism denoted in the bible. It was not even twenty years ago that I was wondering what the big deal was, that the pronoun he should not be used to cover both males and females. It was a natural part of the language at that time, only challenged by "feminists". Even the term feminist had a deragatory smell to it. And "homosexuals" had a similiar negative conotation, that something was wrong with those people, that they were "broken" in some way.

 

Wait a minute tar, isn't god supposed to be unchanging? isn't his word unchanging, his rule always the same, never changing?

 

The question came up earlier, as to why people that believe in the Bible, get a "free pass".

I think it is because its the Bible. Word of God or word of man, it makes no difference, it is the book that people swear to tell the truth while placing their hand upon it, so help them God. It is a "binding" document. It symbolizes our deepest possible connection to each other, and to the world we are a part of. Even if we never read it cover to cover.

 

I've never put my hand on the bible in court, and under oath i always tell the truth...

 

Certainly it fails to contain the absolute objective scientific truth.

 

What truth does it contain? how many of the "truths" have been abandoned because they at some point it becomes obvious they were not truths?

 

It is transparent in its mirroring of the morays and values of man, 2000 years ago, which in many cases, and in many ways, we have "outgrown" or learned are indeed not the ways we wish to be.

 

I agree with this, but how does this support the notion of god? of god unchanging?

 

It is not possible, in my estimation, for me to have the values I have, to make determinations of what is Good and what is Evil, with the "Word of God" not playing some role, as a "source" or foundation (as Villian would put it), on at least a subconscious level.

It was a book highly valued and reverd and respected by my family, church, school, government, and society. The stories and characters in the book are engrained in me, as strongly as the fairy tales of Hans Christian Anderson or Grimms.

 

The idea that morals came from the bible or even religion in general has been dealt with many times here. I see no reason to go into details but as a social species we evolved a moral code, religion hijacked that code it did not create it.

 

The history of Western Civilization was guided by the book. Wars were fought, crusades were mounted, Cathedrals and universities built. Muslims, Christians, Jews, all guided by the truths found in THAT BOOK. Even the Koran is based on THAT BOOK.

 

That is true many evil things occurred because of "THAT BOOK", women were used as sex slaves and sold back and forth as nothing more than property. Many men died for meaningless causes defined as truths in "THAT BOOK"... I would like to point out that "THAT BOOK" is not the only book, not the biggest book, not the oldest book either. other religions have books, some had books but the religion based on "THAT BOOK took great care to destroy all other books it could. just being the biggest bastard doesn't win "THAT BOOK" any points in "MY BOOK'...

 

Even the word bible is used as a generic term referring to even a pamphlet whose principles and words, one goes by "that's my bible".

 

You give people a free pass, who believe in it, because its the Bible.

 

We protect the Koran in the same way. You can't burn a Koran or draw a comic of Mohammed, without strongly offending a billion people.

 

Religions have a lot of "baggage" attached to them. Belief in God has some deep deep meaning to people. And the meaning is obviously not the meaning an Atheist would attach to the word God.

 

I'm not sure i understand this, please elaborate on why belief has any meaning in reality?

 

I am personally at a loss to answer Villian's question about what foundation one builds upon, if they don't "believe in God".

 

A moral code based on Preserving human dignity maybe?

 

I might have my own ideas about what God is, or is not. And what is possible and impossible and what might lie somewhere inbetween, but my "total conception" of the universe, and reality, and life, and death, and what existed before me and after me, and other than me, includes a strange, magical ingredient, that has no scientific name, no way of explaining, no evidence to back it up. Just a "feeling" that I am in some way part of it all, in a way that existed before TAR and will exist after TAR, regardless of the fact that "there is no way that could be true". And this "gives me strength" and a basis upon which to build everything else I muse about, and make judgements about.

 

Is this a false and broken thing I do? That I can believe that God is not literally true, as depicted in the Bible, but still build my house on rock?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

Your house is built on the illusion of rock, a fluid shifting substance called belief, something that can change over night on a whim and prayer...

Edited May 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[Iggy]

Yes, except no one is asking you to abandon your children or your job

I didn't use the word abandon.

 

and you are not forced so slavery is the incorrect term.

Slave must be the incorrect term because a slave has to act like a slave... otherwise they'll be whipped and beaten, and in Christianity you're just tortured eternally if you don't do it. It's entirely different.

 

Jesus used the word slave so you are disagreeing with him. If you do his bidding then you are like a good slave who is rewarded, and if you don't follow his will then you are like a bad slave who is beaten for insolence -- Jesus makes that comparison in multiple gospels. Paul was also fond of the analogy -- he actually started his epistles, "Paul, a slave of Jesus..." I'm not sure you are familiar with the book you're supporting, or maybe you don't know the terminology. Slave is the right term for the greek "doulos" found all over the new testament.

 

Man condemns himself, if he had not rejected God he would not need to be saved.

Brilliant argument. My child also wouldn't need to be saved from the torture I'm going to inflict on her if she hadn't rejected me. She said that I was a bad father so I'm going to torture her... unless she asks me to save her. Brilliant!

 

I can excuse an illiterate person for making that kind of thing up 2,000 years ago in a tribal society where people were treated like property, but hearing someone repeat it today is just confusing.

 

Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man (God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac)

Again, I get the feeling you just haven't read the book. A child was sacrificed to God by a leader of the Israelites and God didn't stop it. Are you familiar with the story?

Edited May 16, 2012 by Iggy

[iNow]

I can excuse an illiterate person for making that kind of thing up 2,000 years ago in a tribal society where people were treated like property, but hearing someone repeat it today is just confusing.

I would use the term disheartening, myself... Something to be minimized in a modern world, for sure.

[MonDie]

I think the belief in 'God' is rooted in death, a state of being broken...

If I didn't take Social Psychology, I would have doubts about this statement. Research has shown that people will indicate a stronger belief in religion after they have contemplated death. I once read a testimony that when someone stopped believing in god at a young age, it bothered them that they would have to die.

[Villain]

True, but none the less what I said is true for most if not all religions, the passage you quoted is one of many contradicted by how religion really works. just quoting that passage does nothing to negate how religion really works, if your experience with your religion was more wide spread you would or at least could see that what i said was correct. It's why Religions often break into smaller and smaller little sects. Christianity is especially bad for this. in my area tiny sects spring up like weeds and die in a few months to a few years because they become so self centered they cannot persist in our society but they always reform someplace else and literally feed on this idea of superiority. They all kinds of insane things from beating children to death because a 4 year old was possessed by the devil to the preacher practically being a harem master. I remember one particularly popular sect, it lasted several years, it was called "The Rod Of God Ministries" the people in the congregation used long hickory rods, about 1/2" in diameter to beat each other during church services, there was a very strong sexual aspect to it as well. They were required to praise Jesus each time the rod beat across their backs.

 

Now I know these are aberrant sects, at least I hope they are but each and every one, and there were dozens more or less just as weird, just in my area, they all based their sect on the bible, in fact the new Testament. The fact remains there are literally tens of thousands of various sects, cults, and denominations all claiming to be the one true church and all hostiles to the others. Before the Church was gelded by secular law these different churches persecuted each other quite vigorously and a good Catholic burning or a Quaker lynching was considered a good way to spend Sunday.

 

You see a religion gelded by law, forced to tolerate each other by law, this is a secular law it is not some kind of sweet Jesus loves us all movement. The religion you see is not what it is but what man made it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See above before you make claims you cannot support, I do indeed know quite a bit about your religion and i learned it down in the trenches not in some ivory tower mentally masturbating over how wonderful Jesus is.

 

 

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. If a religious view is not based on the teachings of Christ, then it is not Christianity (and no, this is not a no true Scotsman assertion). I have little interest in what these people or those people did that formed your view of religion, you don't sound like the kind of person who would accept anything other than the source, so I am confused by the above. Masturbating is not seen as a religious act, but I'm sure you knew that already.

[Moontanman]

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. If a religious view is not based on the teachings of Christ, then it is not Christianity (and no, this is not a no true Scotsman assertion). I have little interest in what these people or those people did that formed your view of religion, you don't sound like the kind of person who would accept anything other than the source, so I am confused by the above. Masturbating is not seen as a religious act, but I'm sure you knew that already.

 

 

Yes, this is a classic example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, since all of the sects and or denominations I have described from the recent ones to the Baptists burning Catholics are indeed based on the teachings of Christ as read in the scripture of the Holy Bible the fact that you think they were based on incomplete or inaccurate interpretations of that scripture and only people who correctly interpret scripture as you see fit are Christians is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[Greg H.]

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. If a religious view is not based on the teachings of Christ, then it is not Christianity (and no, this is not a no true Scotsman assertion). I have little interest in what these people or those people did that formed your view of religion, you don't sound like the kind of person who would accept anything other than the source, so I am confused by the above. Masturbating is not seen as a religious act, but I'm sure you knew that already.

 

The real problem is that no one can seem to agree on what the "teachings of Christ" mean, and how they are interpreted. If the truth of these teachings is as self-evident as every Christian I know states ("just read them more deeply, you'll understand") why are there literally hundreds, if not thousands of Christian denominations scattered across the globe? Seems to me if they were that self-evident, we'd only need one church because there would only be one interpretation of the discussion and texts.

 

 

But that could just be me.

[Moontanman]

The real problem is that no one can seem to agree on what the "teachings of Christ" mean, and how they are interpreted. If the truth of these teachings is as self-evident as every Christian I know states ("just read them more deeply, you'll understand") why are there literally hundreds, if not thousands of Christian denominations scattered across the globe? Seems to me if they were that self-evident, we'd only need one church because there would only be one interpretation of the discussion and texts.

 

 

But that could just be me.

 

Indeed, me as well, the very existence of tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity is quite telling...

[Villain]

I didn't use the word abandon.

 

 

Slave must be the incorrect term because a slave has to act like a slave... otherwise they'll be whipped and beaten, and in Christianity you're just tortured eternally if you don't do it. It's entirely different.

 

Jesus used the word slave so you are disagreeing with him. If you do his bidding then you are like a good slave who is rewarded, and if you don't follow his will then you are like a bad slave who is beaten for insolence -- Jesus makes that comparison in multiple gospels. Paul was also fond of the analogy -- he actually started his epistles, "Paul, a slave of Jesus..." I'm not sure you are familiar with the book you're supporting, or maybe you don't know the terminology. Slave is the right term for the greek "doulos" found all over the new testament.

 

 

Brilliant argument. My child also wouldn't need to be saved from the torture I'm going to inflict on her if she hadn't rejected me. She said that I was a bad father so I'm going to torture her... unless she asks me to save her. Brilliant!

 

I can excuse an illiterate person for making that kind of thing up 2,000 years ago in a tribal society where people were treated like property, but hearing someone repeat it today is just confusing.

 

 

Again, I get the feeling you just haven't read the book. A child was sacrificed to God by a leader of the Israelites and God didn't stop it. Are you familiar with the story?

 

Why don't you provide a reference and then we can discuss your grievances.

 

I will say that you are not a child.

[MonDie]

It would seem logical to assert that there is more potential for bias when there is more information present. Indeed, information overload usually causes people to take mental shortcuts.

The Bible is huge, so even somebody who has read the entire thing will be unable to analyze all the information well unless they are actually tallying down the frequency of all the different types of statements made and such.

 

[Villain]

Yes, this is a classic example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, since all of the sects and or denominations I have described from the recent ones to the Baptists burning Catholics are indeed based on the teachings of Christ as read in the scripture of the Holy Bible the fact that you think they were based on incomplete or inaccurate interpretations of that scripture and only people who correctly interpret scripture as you see fit are Christians is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

I have already referred to a verse by Christ earlier that denotes that kind of behaviour. Why don't you show where Christ said what you are asserting and then you might have something valid. Matthew 7:6 comes to my mind at this stage in time.

[doG]

I have already referred to a verse by Christ....

Newsflash: There's not one word in that whole book that was written by Jesus. The whole book is hearsay so you could not possibly have referred to a verse by Jesus.

[the asinine cretin]

People who believe in God are broken!? We're all broken. The difference? People who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior are wicked and destined to hell fire. So there.

 

 

 

I'm jesting.

 

 

[Iggy]

Why don't you provide a reference and then we can discuss your grievances.

I think providing references is a very good idea. It will force you to read the book you think is divine. By asking for references you do make absolutely clear that you have no clue where these things are in the bible. You've given divine warrant for a book you clearly haven't taken the trouble to read. Unimaginable in my mind.

 

The daughter sacrificed by her father, a leader of Israel, to God is in Jud. 11:29-40. Paul introduces himself as a slave of Jesus in the first sentence in Romans. The comparison Jesus make between his followers and dutiful slaves is in Luke 12:35-48. Notice, also, the passage following that where peaceful Jesus promises to divide the word of people against each other in struggle -- the part where he says he doesn't come to the earth in the name of peace.

 

Almost everything christians believe about christianity can be contradicted in the bible. God is clearly having a terrible time getting his message out, as Greg just pointed out. I bet there are one or two of the chosen people that are in publishing. I think we should get him in touch.

 

I will say that you are not a child.

Fantastic. Why are you granting me this apparent concession of my age?

[MonDie]

In the title, is the "broken" a verb or an adjective?

Edited May 16, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Greg H.]

In the title, is the "broken" a verb or an adjective?

 

AFAIK, broken is always an adjective. (to) Break would be the verb.

 

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case ignore this post.

[MonDie]

AFAIK, broken is always an adjective. (to) Break would be the verb.

 

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case ignore this post.

 

Maybe that was bad phrasing.

I suppose "broke" would be the past-tense verb, and "broken" would be an adjective.

 

Does the thread title state that they are broken or are being broken?

 

Edited May 16, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die